Every different focal length or zoom range of a lens has a unique field of view. It's measured in degrees and the hood is designed to protect from bangs and drops yet more importantly flare and stray light. The shape works with the FoV degree without being overly large and causing vignetting. I think that's correct. Some folx love the look of petal style hoods and put them on lenses not designed for that. They may be risking compromising some shots. YMMV
I've often been tempted by the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II. But I already have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, an EF 135mm f/2 L, and an EF 1.4X III.
I'd still like to know how much the difference in image quality is between the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II and the EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III (which is pretty dang good).
The 70-200 is just as sharp in the center at 135mm as the prime, but nowhere near as smooth in the OOF areas, and of course is also one stop slower.
I understand your point, and I'm sure different people will see it differently. However, for me, yes, I believe those more affordable third party options for Sony E-mount would be better than using comparably priced EF lenses on Canon R cameras, at least so far as the lenses themselves go.The thing you have to ask, though, is are those more affordable third party options for Sony E-mount really any better than using comparably priced EF lenses on Canon R cameras? As far as functionality goes, they're not really "adapted' lenses. Every EF lens works just as well on an RF camera as it does on an EF camera. SOmetime better (in terms of AF accuracy).
I had a particularly poor copy of the 70-200/2.8 L IS II, I think. YMMV, but if you see your own images at 200 and wonder if there's something amiss (as I did), then the 200/2.8 L II might be a good choice for you like it was for me.
However, the fact that you're happy with the EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III tells me you probably shouldn't worry about it.
My EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II has always been very sharp at 200mm. I may even have one of the rare atypical ones Roger Cicala talks about that is slightly sharper at the long end than at the wide end. Even when it took a very hard lick and had significant tilt the center was still razor sharp. The left side that focused closer was also still very good. It was on the right side that focused further which got a little blurry (at all distances) near the edge of the frame. After I sent it in for adjustment it may have came back from Canon Service even sharper than it was when new. I've just never been thrilled with the way the out of focus areas look.
The EF 135mm f/2 L, on the other hand, has the best out of focus rendering of any lens I've ever used. Wide open it's not quite as sharp, but stopped down to f/2.5 or even f/2.2 it's very sharp. The out of focus areas look good no matter what aperture is used.
I don't like the 135/2 + 1.4X III as much as I like the bare 135/2 for sure. I just wonder how much difference the EF 200mm f/2.8 II would give me over that, and would it be worth the extra $900-1,000 I'd have to spend on the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II for the limited number of times I could get away with using only the prime instead of the zoom. I do have far more occasions when I can use the 135mm f/2 instead of the zoom than I have when I could get away with using a 200mm f/2.8 prime instead of the f/2.8 zoom.
I rarely use the 135/2 w/the 1.4X III other than the few times I've played around with it around the house and my 3 acre wooded lot. I bought the extender mainly for more reach with the 70-200 for daylight sports. I use the bare lens and crop if need be when shooting sports under lights.
But when I don't need the flexibility of the zoom the 135/2 + EF1.4 III does give me smoother out of focus areas than the 70-200/2.8 does. At 200mm my 70-200/2.8 is probably a little sharper than the 135/2 + 1.4X III, but the background can be a lot busier in certain shooting scenarios.
I thought I'd go ahead and share a wildlife photo shot with the EF 200/2.8 L II.
The first is cropped to a 400mm FOV, the second is a 1-to-1 pixel crop. Both have some sharpening added, but not enough to mask the lens' actual characteristics, IMO. Taken on an EOS RP w/ servo autofocus, 1/400, f/2.8, around 400-600 ISO.
View attachment 194153
View attachment 194154
The issue there looks more like slightly missed AF when using too narrow an aperture to me. The bird's left claw and the parts of the metal tube further from the camera are much sharper than most of the visible parts of the bird, most of which are closer to the camera than the in-focus parts.